WordWolf

Lindyhopper told this story a few times..... ====== "Funny story. We are in the corp relo tent or something and we are discussing with the Rev. Ander___ on where they can go. It came down to either Dallas, TX as BC as they were before in FL or twig coor. in the town I was now in. The rev was our elder corps while we were in residence . So we were down. Well he goes to talk things over or go abroad or something and it was taking him a while to get back with us. Meanwhile, we are standing waiting and talking about their options when one Rev. J Rumproast came over and asked us if he could help. They told him their deal and how they couldn't decide what would be best. So, He pulls out a coin and says this "This is how we do it in the back... Heads, it?s Dallas, tails it?s B-more. He smiles as though he is kind of joking but totally serious as though he had been inspired by God to do this. It was heads! Praise the Lord! Right about the time everyone is shaking hands and saying our goodbyes to Rev. Rump the Rev. Ander-son-of-a comes walking back in. He is ....ed. He obviously saw some of what went on but insted of yelling at the rump he yells at my parents. To my suprise, my OSD (ol step dad) yells back. I was about to ****e myself. This was Ander-son-of-a--, not some snot-nosed kid. Guess who won? They didn't go to Dallas they went to try and B-more in B-more." =========

Bumping this thread up for latecomers.

One search on all usages of the word "dart" in the ATW forum later..... ChasUFarley, Jul 23 2007, 11:16 PM, said: "First time I went out WOW - it was the 2nd wave, from the 1989 Anniverary at HQ - there were maybe about 20-25 people going out... Anyhow, I remember learning that we wouldn't be told where we were going until the ceremony... I asked someone how did they know where to send us... (We were in the WOW Auditorium at the time, on the second floor, looking at the large relief map on the wall...) I remember he said, "See that map there? Well, they take darts and throw them at that wall. When the dart sticks - THAT's where you're goin'!" (I believed him for 'bout 30 seconds - wide-eyed (hey, I was only 18, okay?!) then he started laughing his fanny off....) ha ha" Thread name: "What was the REAL reason for not telling you where you were going until minutes before hand?" http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=14896 The thread's two pages, but there's some VERY interesting posts on page one... ================

HG Wells?

And the internet is a series of tubes. Based on the second quote, I'd say this is "The Shadow."

Ok, the Stardates mean this is TOS. Spock's suggested in one quote. I'm reasonably sure I've SEEN this at some point, but it's been so long I'm having trouble working out the quotes. But I should take a guess. *wild swing* "The Lights of Zetar"?

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=9569 "Today is the anniversary of what turned out to be the beginning of the end of The Way International, the public release of PASSING OF A PATRIARCH...." Hey, Radar! Good to see you! http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=8483 http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.php?showtopic=9486

Possibly about that many. Graduating classes have been in the single digits for some time now. I still remember reading about graduating classes of FIVE. twi, of course, doesn't say "5 people graduated"- they talked about "20%" of the grads moving onto THIS activity, and "20%" moving onto another. BTW, 20% of 5 means ONE grad.

Here's where the quotes were from... "How can you call him handsome, with those bugged out eyes and hairy legs?" ""You've got a fly on the lens." New neighbors arrived. Lucy and Ethel were spying on them with binoculars. You remember the neigbors-they were actors rehearsing a play. "Ah, my little Chickie, are all our prep-a-rations in order?" Lucy eavesdropped and thought they were going to kill them and assume their identities. So, the Ricardos and Mertzes holed up with firearms in the Ricardos' apartment, blowing a hole in the front door when a policeman responded to their complaint. "Did you get any of 'em?" "Two- a flatfoot and a private eye. I got the eye in the foot and the foot in the eye." They thought Lucy was a kleptomaniac. So, she decided to really ham it up, and made like she was a hardened criminal with Ethel as an accomplice. Remember, her last act as a thief was to go down to Clyde Beatty's Circus? "Why did the French send Marie Antoinette to sharp blade of the guillotine?" ""To scrape the barnacles off her hull!" Ricky rattled off the answers to a radio trivia contest. So Lucy, thinking he was a whiz, called the show to get Ricky on it. (Ricky had passed the studio when they were taping, and heard the answers.) So Lucy tries to get the answers to the questions they'll ask Ricky-and she does. But since he's such a whiz, they RANDOMIZE the questions instead. So the answer about ship hulls, they gave to the guillotine question. "I want the names to be unique and euphonious. "Okay. Unique if it's a boy, and Euphonious if it's a girl." Lucy's spends an episode thinking up baby names for Little Ricky before he's born. "How about 'Phillip' if it's a boy..." "..and 'Morris' if it's a girl?" Same episode. This was one of the more obvious product placements. Lucy Arnaz later objected to how her parents were told to light up cigarettes in every single episode to please their sponsors, Phillip Morris. You can also spot a sign for them whenever they end up sitting at the soda fountain at the local drug store. "Oh, you study numerology?" "Of course." "I'm a 1." "I'm a 3." "Ah, I'm a 5." "We're all odd, aren't we?" Ricky had a VERY superstitious businessman, and Lucy, being superstitious, messed up an appt to see him-but since they had the same superstitions, she made up for it. This was the episode where Ethel plays the medium. "What's your baby's name?" "Cheddar...ah, Chester!" Returning from Europe, Lucy went to bring a cheese to her mother. She found out she'd have to pay duties on it, but if she was carrying a baby, the baby flew for free. So, she wrapped a blanket around the cheese. "I am Chief of Royal Franistanian Police-'Am Jan Zanidu.'" Lucy pretended to be the Maharincess of Franistan, and went to see Ricky play at the club. Ricky got her back by sending the guys to her hotel room, pretending they thought she was the real Maharincess. Fred was wearing a huge black beard in his disguise as the Chief of Police. Eventually, Ricky came in, masked, as the Franistanian villain, Tiger. "Hail, Tiger!" "What is a senator's term of office?" "The sap runs every 2 years." Same gameshow episode, same scene, first question. "We may have to remove her Zorch." ""I got the golbloots from a booshoo bird?!" Lucy had a pretend illness, so Ricky sends a fake doctor to diagnose her with a fake illness. She caught the golbloots. Usually, it's spread by the hind-legs of the booshoo bird. The doctor was worried they may have to remove her zorch. However, they might be able to do only a partial removal. And, after all, half a zorch is better than none... The later, fatal stage of the illness was when she turned green. With the aid of a green light bulb. ""Have you been married to this woman for 15 years?" "Yes." ""And they call ME Superman." George Reeves guest-starred as Superman (played by George Reeves) appearing at Little Ricky's birthday party. Lucy, knowing he couldn't make it, tried to fake being him, and got stuck on the window ledge. Reeves went and brought her in. Before that, he had this exchange with Ricky while on the ledge. ""Did you hear about the fire in the shoe factory? 200 soles were lost!" Ricky agreed to do a Vaudeville comedy act with Lucy-but assigned himself all the punchlines. They sang "Under the Bamboo Tree" and interrupted it with taps of their canes to tell the jokes. As to the aforementioned fire, I bet some heel started it.... "I got wind of it!" "This has been a Ricky Ricardo production!" Ricky made a film of himself for a talent scout. The other 3 made a cowboy film to show the scout-but Ricky insisted he'd only see the one film. So, Lucy cut up Ricky's film and interspliced-BADLY-their cowboy film. The end of the film was Ricky's announcement, and Fred's comment. ALL of those were from "I Love Lucy." Your turn, Hiway29!

Having named "I Love Lucy", you were the first one with a correct answer. (BTW, I met Rob Paulsen.) I shall identify where every single one of those quotes appeared in "I Love Lucy".

I disagree. I don't think the articles were related at all. The LIFE Magazine article was first, focused on the local kids, and made the KIDS sound great and the LOCALS stupid. (I photocopied it when I was in college.) The TIME Magazine article, a year later, made the group sound like crackpots, and vpw the King of the Crackpots. It focused mostly on vpw. It also had a single photo- vp on one of his motorcycles.

"How can you call him handsome, with those bugged out eyes and hairy legs?" ""You've got a fly on the lens." "Did you get any of 'em?" "Two- a flatfoot and a private eye. I got the eye in the foot and the foot in the eye." "Why did the French send Marie Antoinette to sharp blade of the guillotine?" ""To scrape the barnacles off her hull!" "I want the names to be unique and euphonious. "Okay. Unique if it's a boy, and Euphonious if it's a girl." "How about 'Phillip' if it's a boy..." "..and 'Morris' if it's a girl?" "Oh, you study numerology?" "Of course." "I'm a 1." "I'm a 3." "Ah, I'm a 5." "We're all odd, aren't we?" "What's your baby's name?" "Cheddar...ah, Chester!" "I am Chief of Royal Franistanian Police-'Am Jan Zanidu.'" "What is a senator's term of office?" "The sap runs every 2 years." "We may have to remove her Zorch." ""I got the golbloots from a booshoo bird?!" ""Have you been married to this woman for 15 years?" "Yes." ""And they call ME Superman." ""Did you hear about the fire in the shoe factory? 200 soles were lost!" "I got wind of it!"

After this morning, I expect to be out of this discussion as well. I don't see room for my point of view. This looks like it's going to be a continuation of the previous discussion where, despite the stated purpose of "let's see what the Bible says" it's more of "let's see what the Bible SHOULD say, and WOULD say if it was as enlightened as we are." For those who are wondering, I'm bearing no ill will nor emotion towards any posts here, nor any posters, so you can save time wondering if I am. I say we didn't even HAVE a straight doctrinal discussion on it, no pun intended. But I agree we won't be having one now, either. In my opinion, this is largely a variation of what we already tried, but I'll try this angle before Ileave and spare the participants my further posting.. So do I. Since I'm not sure what this means, I'm not sure if I do it or not. But note the things I agree to. I do the same, and refrain from the same, respectively. (Share the gospel when asked, refrain from mocking, refrain from backstabbing and refrain from gossip.) With the specific comments capitalized, it doesn't look to me like this is EMPHASIS as much as it IS yelling. Also, I see a conflation of "the Bible says homosexuality is a sin" with "you're judging homosexuals and condemning them, you closeminded, illiterate, inbred peasant!" PERHAPS he didn't mean that. After all he did say "please play nice" after all that. Does "playing nice" include the possibility of saying "God calls me to love. I treat all people with respect, and understand all sin, but I neither approve or nor sanction those sins, nor claim God approves or sanctions them, no matter WHICH sin it is?" I'm under the impression that this position-which IS my position-is thoroughly (and throughly) unwelcome in this discussion, so I shall spare you further inflicting of it by myself. I can't guarantee anyone else will refrain from doing so. If they asked me, I'd tell them to spare themselves the effort and the rest of you the unwelcome posts. Once again, carry on, everyone.

I agree that the lively discussions with different views are limited now, but I disagree as to the REASON those are limited now. Seems that even disagreeing civilly is beyond reach-the other POV has to be labelled, tarred and feathered now. (Compare this with discussions with myself and Oakspear in the past- we disagree doctrinally on most things, but we can do so civilly, and also keep the discussions on whatever topic they're supposedly on. And neither of us suffered internal injuries doing so.) ================ I see little reason for me to get into this topic, for reasons I will make clear. However, I DO feel a need to set the record straight on something. I THOUGHT I communicated clearly enough the FIRST time, but perhaps I did not. Here's what Bramble said here: "I'm out, it pi$$ es all the Biblical researchers off that I posted on the doctrinal thread, so I'm sure it will Pi$$ others off if I post on a godly love thread." That sounds like there was some sort of PUBLIC OUTCRY that she posted at all on a thread on doctrine. Is that what happened? Here's part of the opening post on that thread: "With all the talk of late on other threads and in politics etc, I thought I'd go back to the Bible and and see what it says (as I have done with many things since leaving TWI) from my new perspective. I was somewhat surprised with what I read. So, what are your views of homosexuality and what are the verses you use to back up that view?" It seemed to me to be a pretty straightforward purpose of a thread- the question was "What does the Bible actually say/mean concerning homosexuality?" It said "I thought I'd go back to the Bible and see what it says", and "what are the verses you use", so it seems to me that the stated purpose is to discuss what it actually says, and means BY what it says. There's room for disagreement, mostly in specifically what it says, and by what that means. Many fine points can be debated just on one key phrase. So, I expected posters to at least ATTEMPT to stay on that topic. Bramble made a point of not doing that. She began with: "Whether homosexuality is a sin in the Christian doctrinal world or not matters very little to me." In other words, she had little interest in what the Bible says and little interest in the verses used, which, to me, means she had little interest in the thread's purpose. That's fine. Generally, though, when someone is disinterested in the stated topic of a thread, that means they find some other thread that interests them, and discusses THAT. Instead, she expounded on her own views. She's entitled to her own views, and her own doctrines, and this IS the doctrinal forum. That having been said, I thought this was the wrong THREAD to discuss DOCTRINES if those DOCTRINES had no interest in the BIBLE or VERSES. Seemed straightforward to me. Getting back to Bramble's specific complaint in this thread, then.... "I'm out, it pi$$ es all the Biblical researchers off that I posted on the doctrinal thread, so I'm sure it will Pi$$ others off if I post on a godly love thread." So I was the ONLY person who made a comment about that. I'm ONE person. That changed to "all the Bibilical researchers". Did I complain she posted on the doctrinal thread? No, only that she posted off-topic on that thread. If it was a doctrinal thread that asked about doctrines specifically from other books and EXCLUDING the Bible, and I had come on and kept posting about the Bible on it, I would have expected the equivalent response. I said as much: "Congratulations. Why, then, participate in a discussion about THE BIBLE, whose purpose was to ask "WHAT DOES THE BIBLE SAY ON THIS?" I mean, how many posts does it take to say "I'm posting on this thread to say I don't care about its subject". (That's effectively what you said. Lindy asked "what does it say" and you posted "I don't care.") If it was a discussion, say, of Starhawk's books and I had no interest in it, it would be unlikely I'd even spend ONE post saying "I'm disinterested in this subject"-I'd let those who wanted to discuss her Doctrine continue to do so without distraction." I made a SINGLE post about it. Was it a HOSTILE, INFLAMMATORY post? I just pasted the relevant part-you judge. I can't find the "pi$$ off" part, neither word-for-word nor in effect. I thought it was a reasonable comment. I also bowed out of the discussion in that very post. This meant Bramble's next post allowed her to have the last word on the subject. She said: "I think that discussing how a doctrine helps or hinders real people in the real world is a valid point of discussion, WW. As far as the Bible doctrine--there will be no definitive answer, there never is. Christian doctrine is all over the map and all based on the Bible. This discussion will end up in 'camps' like thay all do. But maybe some people will read it and think." Now, I disagree, but I left it at that. We stated our disagreement, and that was it. I thought that was civil if nothing else. When someone else brought up-to a different poster- that the stated purpose of the threat was "what does the Bible say" and we STILL had discussed everything BUT that, Bramble chose to reply: "You have your Bible verses. How's that all working in the real world? Oh, wait, I forgot, that doesn't matter in a doctrinal discussion." That looks to me like BRAMBLE dragged the subject back out, and NOT in a civil fashion, more with a barbed post. The immediate reply addressed that: "No, you didn't forget ... those are questions that could be asked and answered somewhere else, it is not a question of whether they matter, but they are a separate issue. That is a matter of application or practice ..." That response was "in kind" and answered hers. I STILL don't see anyone getting "pi$$ed off". ================= Why did I bother all the reposting? Simply this: I object to the dishonesty and unfairness that turned simple disagreement into some PERSONAL issue where someone supposedly suffered PERSECUTION. (The word "persecution" was not used, but she's suggesting she was attacked just for posting, or for having a different opinion, or for posting a different opinion.) I expect to see that sort of thing in politics, and on messageboards where teenagers play foolish, histrionic games with each other. I DON'T expect it here-I expect intelligent, civil discussion. Did this forum now get to the point where disagreeing with someone allows them to claim they were attacked? Is the next step "we shall censor the posters who kept bringing up that hateful Bible thing"? Bizarre to even suggest it- but I think it's bizarre we even got THIS far.

Don't know why your link didn't work. http://www.andrewtobias.com/cgi-local/display_col.pl?050720 Here's what it says: ======================================== NOTES FROM A FORMER CULTIST . . . With seemingly nice teenagers morphing in just months into suicide bombers, it’s of no small interest how exactly this happens. I sure don’t know. Still, this note from one of you helped me imagine how one comes to drink the Kool-Aid. (Have we a remarkable readership, or what?) ------------------------------- My Cult Years Personal History by John Seiffer Growing up in an upper middle class town with parents who were smart, intellectual, and cultural Jews, I was a hippie wannabe. I was old enough to identify with flower children, smoke a little pot and even march against the Vietnam War, but I was only 14 when Woodstock happened and I wasn’t old enough to be a full-fledged YIPPE or anything serious like (god forbid) a Weatherman. And I wasn’t the right color to be a black panther. Perhaps I could sue for discrimination? The summer before my junior year in high school (1970), an older sister of a friend of mine came back to town as a Jesus freak and turned a bunch of us on to the bible. Now this was something cool! It was unusual (to say the least) and totally anti-establishment. It was against established religion (not that I’d had any ties to religion to begin with) it was certainly anti-intellectual. It gave us a cause (we were on a mission literally to save the world) and it was communal. Not in the sense that we lived together but we were a tight knit community. Having alienated everyone else, what other choice did we have but to commune with each other? The group was The Way International, a two-bit “ministry” founded by a guy in Ohio who had gotten kicked out of his parish years before. He said he was forced out for teaching the real truth like it had never been known before, but I’ve since heard it was for messing with the money, the women or both. We started some prayer meetings and bible studies in high school and since we were in a liberal part of the country (Westchester county NY) and most of us were top students we attracted the attention of a writer who did a story on us for Life Magazine called “The Groovy Christians of Rye, NY” My mother was quoted in the article as saying “Drugs I can understand, but this is creepy.” Don’t you hate it when your mother turns out to be right after all these years? When I got involved, the group was beginning a pretty large growth spurt that in the next 10 years would include almost 100,000 people. So there was a need for leaders. I went through their leadership program and got ordained. I was legally able to perform wedding and funerals and such. I was never at the very top of the organization – I rose to a level perhaps analogous to Vice President in a public corporation. The teachings of the group were supposed to be built on biblical research but as is typical in such organizations, it was really built on “What the head guy says is THE TRUTH.” There were some references to obscure ancient texts, some mistranslation of Greek and Aramaic and such, but no real questioning allowed and certainly no academic-style inquiry. It was pretty fundamentalist in doctrine and very conservative in politics - which it didn’t mind foisting on followers who were assumed not to be spiritual enough to make up their own minds about such matters. As you would expect from a group that believes God has called them to spread the one true light, there was a high degree of fanatical devotion. It differed from the current religious right in isolating itself more from main stream society (it was, among other things not nearly as involved politically) and in a few doctrinal differences (acceptance of abortion being one – turns out the top leaders needed this to cover evidence of some of their indiscretions). The organization was based on fellowships in people’s homes. It was not a communal cult, like the Branch Davidians where everyone lived together. But it did have a sizeable training program where as many as a thousand people lived on 4 campuses for 2 years of indoctrination. At its height it had fellowships in all 50 states and dozens of other countries. And it was certainly a cult in the sense of devotion to its leader and the obedience it required in almost every aspect on people’s personal lives. There was also, I was to find out later, quite an amassing of money and sexual favors at the very top. Looking back, I know that the reason it appealed to me personally was I was a kid with “potential” but no inner drive or direction. Not uncommon when one has an overbearing mother and an emotionally distant father. Involvement in The Way provided direction, a surrogate family and a strong father figure. Not to mention shelter from having to do the hard work of growing up emotionally. When I first joined, it was a rather free spirited, but as it grew in numbers, the organization instituted rules and required more commitment – especially for leaders. Commitment to such a cause required orienting your entire life around it – jobs, friends, family etc. In my case, with no internal ambition, I found this an easy path for me to follow. I stayed involved through college and into my thirties. They provided a “career path” for some who became paid employees. But they weren’t paid or treated well. I found it easier to remain a committed volunteer. I supported myself with a series of small businesses that gave me the income to live and freedom to be involved with annual retreats, and leadership conferences. They also encouraged leaders to move every few years, and being entrepreneurial made that easier. So it was actually the start of my life as a serial entrepreneur. And as an ironic side note, as the group grew, it became obsessed with growth and even more so after the numbers peaked and started to slide. The height was probably in the late 1970’s. In the early ‘80s I was in charge of the fellowships in Marin County (and up the coast) in Northern California. It was a time when Japan was economically kicking the butts of companies in the US so there were a lot of business books written about how to get, or stay on top. My “boss” was in charge of a couple western states, and at our leaders meetings he would talk about stuff he was learning from those books in an attempt to help us increase our numbers. So it also furthered my education in business principles, which in retrospect has been a lot more helpful than what I learned about the bible. As things progressed I did feel a bit constrained but by then I had no other part of my life to balance out. Leaving the group would mean having to rebuild my entire life – new friends, new employment, new identity in a certain sense. And I wasn’t ready to even consider that. It took an organizational crisis for me to decide it was time to take that jump. By then I was married (thankfully we got out before our first child was born) and I don’t know if I could have done it without the support of some friends who were doing the same thing. What happened was a power grab. The man who started the organization (Victor Paul Weirwille) had decided, for whatever personal reasons, that he would replace himself as leader before he died. He chose his successor based on loyalty. This guy (Craig Martindale) was loyal, but also loud, boorish, and obnoxious. The group was already starting to decline in numbers (due in large part, I think, to social changes that made YUPPIES more attractive than Jesus Freaks) but Martindale’s leadership style furthered that decline. Still Weirwille was around for a number of years and either through senility, declining health or frustration with having been kicked up stairs (even though he himself did the kicking) he lashed out against his successor just before he died. But he lashed out privately – to a confidante he had installed as leader of the operations in Europe, a man named Chris Geer. Coincidentally Geer was a fellow “groovy Christian.” I knew him in high school and we had gotten into the organization at the same time. Weirwille told Geer of his dissatisfaction and also the fact that he was dying of cancer. He told him to wait a year after he died and if things didn’t change, to come back to the States and raise hell. Which is what happened. As a member of the clergy, I was invited to some of these hell raising sessions which had the effect of putting the organization in turmoil. Folks were deciding which person they were going to follow and a few of us decided not to follow either of them. Some started their own groups but me and some others took the opportunity to reject the bible, Christianity, and any of the stuff we’d been taught. We then got on with rebuilding our lives. Epilogue I left in late 1986. The group is still alive. Groups actually. Geer runs his own. And many followers have left to form or join off­shoot groups. Martindale was tossed out as President of The Way a few years ago after a former employee sued on charges of sexual abuse. It was settled out of court. But the group never came clean about the extent of the problem. They just kicked the one guy out and hushed it up. The Way became much more legalistic in the years after I left. It has shrunk to a number estimated at fewer than 4,000 with maybe half of those children. But it is reputed to have assets of around $40 million. Most of the former members I know who did not join (or start) an off-shoot have in fact gone back to beliefs similar to those they grew up with. In my case, after some therapy, a divorce and re-marriage I’m a more fervent agnostic than I’ve ever been, and I practice non-observant, cultural Judaism with a burning indifference I never had before. Conclusion The experience has certainly given me insight into the fundamentalist mind set. You can’t talk to these people. It takes so much effort to maintain these kinds of beliefs, despite all the evidence that the world doesn’t work that way, that logic is just not given much weight. Every idea, action, opinion, thought and emotion is judged only against the holy doctrine and is concluded to be either right or wrong. No shades of gray are allowed. The sense of superiority and hubris are immense. Such is the burden of one called to know and (more importantly) spread the only truth that can save people from an eternity of damnation. When applied to action, this mind set provides intense motivation to do tireless grunt work. Such vast armies of dedicated folks who are willing to be seen as weird yet who are conditioned not to think outside the lines are a huge benefit to leaders who want to rise to power. In “my day” we focused this action on recruitment (the Mormons still do). But in the last 20 years it has been focused on transforming politics and education. I no longer pretend to speak on behalf of the almighty, so I’m not willing to say if God equates an elected town council person with a saved soul, but I can tell you it probably feels a lot more successful to man a phone bank or hand out political flyers than it does to try to get the disinterested to come to your church or bible study. This attitude has taken the political left completely by surprise. Even when the progressives (or whatever you call them) had people in the streets and willing to do the work (I’m thinking of the civil rights movement and the anti-war movement of the 60s) those leaders never considered that their followers would gladly give up their capacity for thoughtful questioning. But such is the mind set of a fundamentalist. I’m not sure my personal history of getting in and out of this mindset can be applied to the religious right today. The main reason that I got in was as an act of rebellion. My sense is that most “believers” today are in due to a sense of community and family tradition – not rebellion. Also my involvement was due to some intense psychological/emotional needs. As you can imagine most relationships were pretty superficial so I didn’t really know the others involved as well as I thought I did. But I’d be willing to bet they had psychological problems as well. I can practically diagnose the top leaders as narcissists and megalomaniacs. I’m sure some of that plays into the thinking of fundamentalists today – but maybe in a less pathological way because there seems to be more functionality on a social level. And I got out due to an internal crisis, with the support of others doing the same thing. But I was in a group removed from society (and we knew it). The religious right today is much more a part of society – albeit one they are trying to reshape - so the prospect of an organizational crisis that shakes their belief system is less likely. And trying to “get someone out” is like trying to cure an alcoholic before they’ve hit bottom. I knew people whose parents hired deprogrammers to kidnap them. A number of them came back, they were after all of legal age. And the biggest problem is that once you are a believer that mind set filters everything else you allow yourself to consider. It’s not just that the ends justify the means (which they believe) but that the end conclusion justifies or invalidates any logical argument or whether you consider any data set valid or not. It happened to communist ideologs and radical lefties who were out to change the world (where are they now?) and it’s always been present in the radical religious movements in this country. One difference now it they’ve learned the patience and the willingness to work the system in ways that other groups have not.

I posted this once before. To save Time on their bandwidth, here's the part of the article that references twi... ================================== The Jesus Revolution (TIME, June 23) includes preachers of hellfire and promoters of love, fundamentalist Christians, mainstream Protestants, and even some Roman Catholics. Most, however, at least share a common belief in the basic tenets of Christianity: the triune nature of God, the divinity of Jesus Christ, the Gospels as the cornerstone of faith. But some so-called Jesus freaks really subscribe to exotic creeds all their own that to orthodox Christians are close to what used to be called heresy. And not only to traditional churchmen: even many inside the movement look suspiciously on these fellow travelers with Jesus as distorters of the true Gospel. Two such eccentric groups are The Way and The Process: The Way Externally, The Way looks like any other branch of the Jesus movement: its adherents are mostly bright-eyed, smiling teenagers, ecstatically exchanging "Bless yous," telling of drug cures, perpetually thumbing their Bibles. There is also the ubiquitous music drumming across Gospel messages, sometimes to the beat of hard rock. In mid-August, more than a thousand young followers descended on The Way Biblical Research Center in New Knoxville, Ohio (pop. 850), for a weekend of spiritual study almost continuously backgrounded by rock. Musical groups of Way believers with names like The Dove, Cookin' Mama, and one from Long Island called Pressed Down, Shaken Together & Running Over, belted out the sounds. But it is The Way's message, not its music, that is offbeat. That message is preached by the movement's founder, Victor Paul Wierwille, 54, a trim, tanned, fast-talking six-footer who likes to wear Western-cut suits with a scarf around his neck and tool around the countryside on a big Harley-Davidson. A former minister of the United Church of Christ who has studied both at the University of Chicago Divinity School and Princeton Theological Seminary, Wierwille is now a crackerbarrel theological promoter who grandiosely claims to have done the only "pure and correct" interpretation of the Bible since the First Century. He has been working on his theology for about 25 years, ever since he shucked his academic background by burning more than 1,000 religious books "to clean myself out" before starting his own research. Wierwille argues that the Bible as a whole is not relevant to all people of all times. Every word of Scripture is equally inspired by God, he says, but different books were addressed to different audiences. The Old Testament and the Four Gospels are for the Jews and Gentiles; the rest of the New Testament is for the "Church of God" of "born-again believers." But Wierwille and his Wayfarers concentrate mainly on the nine Epistles of St. Paul to the early churches, especially the letter to the Ephesians, which, he insists, distills nearly everything important in the Word of God. Wierwille dismisses the doctrine of the Trinity as a throwback to paganism, because it proposes, he says, "three Gods." To him, Jesus is "the Son of God," but not God the Son. "You show me one place in the Bible where it says he is God," Wierwille thunders. "I don't want your rapping, your doubletalk, your tripletalk; all I want is Scripture." And the Holy Spirit, says Wierwille, is just a synonym for God. Wierwille's theology is propounded in pamphlets, a magazine, and books, but mainly in a filmed and taped "foundation course," into which he has unloaded 36 hours of rambling, folksy lectures on the Bible. The title of the course—which costs $65 per head: "Power for Abundant Living." Carrying Norman Vincent Peale's pious optimism a good bit further, Wierwille promises that right "believing" will keep away sickness, ensure prosperity, and even protect soldier converts from Viet Cong bullets. Poverty is seen as a result of imperfect faith: the Good Life is a proper reward for believers. Most of Wierwille's converts come from just that Good Life: comfortable middle-or upper-class families in predominantly white suburbs. Sometimes parents have followed their youngsters into the fold. Although Wierwille founded his research center in 1953, the movement around it has started to grow only in the past few years. He keeps no records and gives only the vaguest estimate of the number of his followers—"5,000, maybe 10,000," in "most" states and "nine, twelve, 15 countries." There is a vigorous chapter in Wichita, Kans., and strong groups in Rye, N.Y., and in Mill Valley, Calif.—which are called The Way East and The Way West. All conduct meetings where they listen to Wierwille's recorded words and offer extemporaneous prayers. Attendance is also good at the sermons that Wierwille delivers in person at New Knoxville. His brother Harry, 64, the treasurer of the center, claims that Sunday services take in as much as $10,000 a night. The money, say the Wierwilles, is being used for a $3,000,000 building program to expand The Way still further. ========================================== ========================================== For the curious, the rest of the article was on "the Process". Here's that: ========================================== The Process The polite, earnest, uniformed "Messengers" of The Process Church of the Final Judgment are hard to miss these days if one walks up Manhattan's Fifth Avenue or Chicago's Michigan Avenue. The points of their collars are decorated with red three-horned goats' heads; between the horns dangles a large silver cross. Satan and Christ? Yes. And more. If the followers of The Way have trouble accepting a Trinity, the Processeans emphatically do not. But their "Three Great Gods of the Universe" are jealous and warring deities who battle among themselves in an eternal "game" for control of men's souls. The three gods of their bizarre theology represent "three basic patterns of human reality." One of them is Jehovah, a "wrathful God of vengeance and retribution," who demands "discipline, courage and ruthlessness" from his followers. The second is Lucifer, wrongly confused with Satan, they say. He is the "Light-Bearer" who urges humans to "enjoy life to the full, to value success, to be gentle and kind and loving." The third is Satan, "the receiver of corrupted bodies and transcendent souls," who impels humans both toward a subhuman life of depravity and a superhuman life of asceticism. The Processeans see Christ as a transcendent "unifier" who ultimately reconciles all three of the competing gods. The Process was founded only eight years ago in London by a former Anglican named Robert de Grimston, now in his mid-30s, who is known as "the Teacher" to Processeans. De Grimston has no permanent base, but conducts a will-o'-the-wisp peripatetic ministry, communicating with his followers in letters they call "brethren information." Occasionally he drops in at a Process chapter to teach the "brethren" in person. Weird though it may be, his message seems to be spreading. Although the London chapter is closed, there are others in Toronto, Chicago, New Orleans, Cambridge, Mass., and soon, the Processeans hope, in New York City. So far the followers are few in number—about 500—but extremely zealous. Members of the sect with outside jobs are expected to tithe. Those who choose to become full-time Processeans help support the movement by hawking on city streets paperbacks about its message and goals. In keeping with the vaguely clerical garb often worn by members, the Processeans are strict in their ethical teachings: unmarried adherents, for example, are expected to remain chaste. Many of the Processeans come from the same drug-strewn, rootless backgrounds from which the Jesus people have fled. But The Process preaches more psychological self-realization than faith. One of the movement's key practices is a weekly telepathy session in which "contact and communication" are emphasized in much the same way as they are in encounter therapy. At the core of Processean psychology is the gloomy and negative conviction that human enterprise is a futile escape from the painful contradictions of a world in which most men are pawns in the game of the gods. Only by facing the bitter reality of that situation and taking his own full responsibility for his actions can a Processean escape the game. Christ, the unifier of forces, is his ally in the struggle. The telepathy sessions are supplemented by Saturday-evening services that seem rather mild for a sect that includes Satan among its gods. The services consist mainly of prayers, spontaneous dialogues and hymns, punctuated by guitars, gongs, drumbeats and incense. In the candlelit worship room, the goat's head and the cross share equal prominence. Christ's enmity with Satan, say the Processeans, will eventually be overcome by Christ's own dictum to "love thine enemy." For Processeans, that eventuality is near at hand, for they believe in the imminent end of the world.

When I joined up, I was serious about maintaining good morals, and saw any type of "fooling around" as contradicting that. I found it amazing that vpw could make claims that Christians should be faithful in marriage and so on-when he PERSONALLY was doing the opposite, and had composed personal doctrines that made it acceptable to him. Even as a youth, I knew if I sinned that God didn't like it, and I didn't try to pass that one off.

"How can you call him handsome, with those bugged out eyes and hairy legs?" ""You've got a fly on the lens." "Did you get any of 'em?" "Two- a flatfoot and a private eye. I got the eye in the foot and the foot in the eye." "Why did the French send Marie Antoinette to sharp blade of the guillotine?" ""To scrape the barnacles off her hull!" "I want the names to be unique and euphonious. "Okay. Unique if it's a boy, and Euphonious if it's a girl." "How about 'Phillip' if it's a boy..." "..and 'Morris' if it's a girl?" "Oh, you study numerology?" "Of course." "I'm a 1." "I'm a 3." "Ah, I'm a 5." "We're all odd, aren't we?" "What's your baby's name?" "Cheddar...ah, Chester!" "I am Chief of Royal Franistanian Police-'Am Jan Zanidu.'" "What is a senator's term of office?" "The sap runs every 2 years." "We may have to remove her Zorch."

Hello, Aball. Enjoy your stay. Different versions work for different people, for different reasons.You probably know this, but there's three rough categories of versions: 1) Paraphrases (that give the basic meaning, like The Message, The Living Bible, and so on) 2) Concept for concept (that attempt to translate each concept, like the NIV, and so on) 3) Word for word (that attempt to translate each word, like the KJV, the RSV, and so on) If you're looking for a direct, word for word, but NOT the KJV, I'll recommend the NASB, the New American Standard Bible. It's got the italics, but it uses more documentation (discovered in the past decades and centuries), uses plain English, and attempts to use words consistently- meaning a word translates into ONE English word EACH time it's used-at least, that's the goal.) If you don't like it, then, fine, use what works for you. We've discussed the HECK out of this one. In the "About The Way" forum and the Doctrinal forum, plus the Archives, there's a LOT of discussion on it, from all sorts of discussions. Generally speaking, the positions tend to polarize between 3 of them: 1) vpw was a great man who understood deep principles, and the "Law" of Believing is indeed a "Law" 2) vpw was a great man who was misunderstood and didn't mean it was a "Law" when he called it that 3) the "Law" of Believing is no "Law" and works nothing like vpw said it did Most posters tend to fall into the third category.

"How can you call him handsome, with those bugged out eyes and hairy legs?" ""You've got a fly on the lens." "Did you get any of 'em?" "Two- a flatfoot and a private eye. I got the eye in the foot and the foot in the eye." "Why did the French send Marie Antoinette to sharp blade of the guillotine?" ""To scrape the barnacles off her hull!" "I want the names to be unique and euphonious. "Okay. Unique if it's a boy, and Euphonious if it's a girl." "How about 'Phillip' if it's a boy..." "..and 'Morris' if it's a girl?" "Oh, you study numerology?" "Of course." "I'm a 1." "I'm a 3." "Ah, I'm a 5." "We're all odd, aren't we?" "What's your baby's name?" "Cheddar...ah, Chester!"

"How can you call him handsome, with those bugged out eyes and hairy legs?" ""You've got a fly on the lens." "Did you get any of 'em?" "Two- a flatfoot and a private eye. I got the eye in the foot and the foot in the eye." "Why did the French send Marie Antoinette to sharp blade of the guillotine?" ""To scrape the barnacles off her hull!"

Here's how the quotes went... "You will unite or you will fall." Elrond to the Council at Rivendell. "All shall love me and despair!" Galadriel, tested by Frodo's offer of The Ring. "I suppose you think that was terribly clever." Gandalf, to Bilbo after he left his birthday party. "Fly, you fools." Gandalf to the Fellowship, just before they left Moria, his last line in Moria. "If anyone was to ask for my opinion, which I note they're not, I'd say we were taking the long way around." Gimli to the Fellowship, as they try to scale Caradhras instead of entering Moria. " Throw yourself in next time, and rid us of your stupidity." Gandalf to Pippin in Moria. "Fool of a Took!" "Are you frightened?" "Yes." "Not nearly frightened enough." Strider and Frodo upon meeting, at the Prancing Pony. "That wound will never fully heal. He will carry it the rest of his life." Gandalf, discussing Frodo's injury from a Nazgul once Elrond healed him. "I feel... thin. Sort of stretched, like... butter scraped over too much bread." Bilbo's most evocative line when leaving, having turned 111 (old for a hobbit) but seeming UNCHANGED for the last few decades. He didn't FEEL like he looked...The Ring was changing him slowly. (If they'd left it out of the movie, I would have been disappointed.)

CORRECT!

The "Batman" television show, the Adam West/Burt Ward one.

"You will unite or you will fall." "All shall love me and despair!" "I suppose you think that was terribly clever." "Fly, you fools." "If anyone was to ask for my opinion, which I note they're not, I'd say we were taking the long way around." " Throw yourself in next time, and rid us of your stupidity." "Are you frightened?" "Yes." "Not nearly frightened enough." "That wound will never fully heal. He will carry it the rest of his life." "I feel... thin. Sort of stretched, like... butter scraped over too much bread."